...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I was meaning more along the lines of The BBC quiet happy to report this as a newco situatuion. Former New Zealand Rugby League chairman Andrew Chalmers and ex-Wigan coach Graham Lowe have been confirmed as the new owners of the Bradford club to replace the liquidated Bulls. Sorry, never made it clear. That's what I thought too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 1m1 minute ago Poole notes that it is only recently that gambling debts would be enforceable by the courts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunoatemyhamster Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) Sorry, never made it clear. That's what I thought too. I got you, just highlighted to show my disbelief in the statement on the site. Here another beaut "The group came close to taking the Bulls out of administration at the end of 2016, when a bid they made was rubber-stamped by the RFL, only to be rejected by the administrator. Chalmers registered the name Bradford Bulls 2017 at Companies House. RFL director of operations and legal, Karen Moorhouse, said: "The RFL is confident that the consortium selected to run a new club in Bradford will provide an exciting and stable future for rugby league in the city." For any sevconians looking in, The BBC are the enemy. Edited January 19, 2017 by brunoatemyhamster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 13s14 seconds ago Poole ends, Sandison for Coral rises and begins by accusing Kinloch of "concealing his vast background in gambling" and being "self serving" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 16s16 seconds ago Sandison says that, evidence aside, the whole case hinges on the meaning of the word "relegation' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 45s46 seconds ago Sandison now going through precidents dealing with the "construction of contracts" adds, "I could talk for days on this issue.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 16s16 seconds ago Sandison "Rangers were not moved to a lower league, a set of circumstances arose that made them ineligible to play in the Premier League" James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 45s46 seconds ago Sandison tells the court the word "relegation" comes from ancient Rome from when someone was exiled after displeasing the emperor. James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 45s46 seconds ago Sandison returns to his point that "relegation" is a transitive verb. Accepts he has not had much success with that so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 7s7 seconds ago Sandison "Rangers were not relegated from the SPL, they were expelled from it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Sandison "Rangers were not moved to a lower league, a set of circumstances arose that made them ineligible to play in the Premier League" My question in return would be, what were those circumstances? Talk about " beating around the bush" "treading on egg shells" "avoiding the obvious". Just say Rangers went bust and the new entity had to reapply for a licence that allowed the new club to compete starting at the bottom. It's really that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 7s7 seconds ago Sandison "Rangers were not relegated from the SPL, they were expelled from it." Now we have it but still not 100% accutate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 46 seconds ago Sandison returns to his point that "relegation" is a transitive verb. Accepts he has not had much success with that so far James Doleman @jamesdoleman 7 seconds ago Sandison "Rangers were not relegated from the SPL, they were expelled from it." Aye, and "expel" is also a transitive verb. I think your lack of success with that one is on you there, Sandy. Edit: Also, "relegation" is actually a noun, though that may have just been Doleman not quite quoting him right. Edited January 19, 2017 by Justin Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) And now the coup de gras surely? Edited January 19, 2017 by davieholt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Paulo Sergio Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 46 seconds ago Sandison returns to his point that "relegation" is a transitive verb. Accepts he has not had much success with that so far James Doleman @jamesdoleman 7 seconds ago Sandison "Rangers were not relegated from the SPL, they were expelled from it." Aye, and "expel" is also a transitive verb. I think your lack of success with that one is on you there, Sandy. Edit: Also, "relegation" is actually a noun, though that may have just been Doleman not quite quoting him right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurdie Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Sandison "Rangers were not moved to a lower league, a set of circumstances arose that made them ineligible to play in the Premier League" My question in return would be, what were those circumstances? Talk about " beating around the bush" "treading on egg shells" "avoiding the obvious". Just say Rangers went bust and the new entity had to reapply for a licence that allowed the new club to compete starting at the bottom. It's really that simple. It's laughable. Just bloody say it. Rangers were liquidated, it's really easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 55s56 seconds ago Sandison says a bet on "Rangers leaving the SPL for any reason either wouldn't be accepted or would only have odds of 2/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 16s16 seconds ago Sandison says that, evidence aside, the whole case hinges on the meaning of the word "relegation' No. It doesn't. If he stopped fannying about and dropped the L Bomb the case can easily be wrapped up successfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 27s28 seconds ago Sandison suggests Kinloch was a "professional gambler" as he was "carrying on an activity in pursuit of profit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 27s28 seconds ago Sandison suggests Kinloch was a "professional gambler" as he was "carrying on an activity in pursuit of profit." Isn' t that why people gamble. Or is he saying mug punters aren't out to profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I must admit, I like the occasional bet. It's the thrill of losing my money, that keeps me coming back for more. Profit? Winning money? Ha. Ludicrous. I truly despise litigating and also freely admit I am probably terrible at it based on the available data. This defence though has been godawful to the point of being comical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I remember one night, I told my missus I lost ?50 on a bet. @ 5/1 odds. Some loving that night, let me tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I thought the most telling statement from Rod McKenzie this morning was his response to a question from Mr Sandison. Counsel asks "Was the football team called Rangers FC ever relegated from the SPL?" McKenzie responds "that would require me to make a judgement on what is "relegation" and I'd rather not do so" Now that response came from the same person who admitted that he had drafted most of the rules of the SPL and had advised the SPL on many matters, yet as the person probably most qualified to make such a judgement, he is unwilling to do so. You would have to ask why. I know it's after the event , but in what capacity was McKenzie called - expert witness ? Why wasn't he forced to answer the question ? He's not being asked to make a judgement , he's being asked to explain the judgement handed down by the SPL/SPFL 4 years ago. So he is saying he is refusing to explain the decision of the football governing bodies , in a court of law. Is this what it has come to ? And he's also a lawyer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 1m1 minute ago Sandison "Are we to surrender the decision on who won or lost a sporting event to the power of the popular press?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 1m1 minute ago Sandison "Are we to surrender the decision on who won or lost a sporting event to the power of the popular press?" They've still not come right out and said it, Disco! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 They've still not come right out and said it, Disco! No' ma fault likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Sandison "Rangers were not moved to a lower league, a set of circumstances arose that made them ineligible to play in the Premier League" My question in return would be, what were those circumstances? Talk about " beating around the bush" "treading on egg shells" "avoiding the obvious". Just say Rangers went bust and the new entity had to reapply for a licence that allowed the new club to compete starting at the bottom. It's really that simple. If they were "not moved " , how could they be playing in a lower league. Is it an immaculate misconception ? It's like listening to a child arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 1m1 minute ago Sandison "Are we to surrender the decision on who won or lost a sporting event to the power of the popular press?" NO SURRENDER. Sandison forgot to add , it was on Corals own website. Edited January 19, 2017 by 269miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I had a hunt but I can't find the rules and definitions from 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I find myself partial to this shot for some reason . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 26s27 seconds ago Sandison now questioning why Kinloch has not handed his betting slip over to Coral. "It's a negotiable instrument' he tells the court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I find myself partial to this shot for some reason . . . 'USA, USA...' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 26s27 seconds ago Sandison now questioning why Kinloch has not handed his betting slip over to Coral. "It's a negotiable instrument' he tells the court "Negotiable instrument" is lawyerese for something along the lines of a cheque, bill of exchange, promissory note, etc. But according to Coral the negotiable value of Kinloch's betting slip is ?0. Why should he hand it over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 10s11 seconds ago Hearing ends and Lord Balantyne retires to consider his verdict. Should be given next month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Fair to say Coral messed that up! All they had to do was provide a timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Let's hope the good Lord does his homework on the Rangers demise as its obvious to all that Rangers died and went to liquidation heaven and a new entity bought the rights to join the SPFL. Relegation never happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) Been a good entertaining diversion Edited January 19, 2017 by Mikey1874 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Let's hope the good Lord does his homework on the Rangers demise as its obvious to all that Rangers died and went to liquidation heaven and a new entity bought the rights to join the SPFL. Relegation never happened. Is he allowed to do that though? Is he not bound to consider the case on the basis of evidence presented? It would be a bit off if he made a decision citing facts which never appeared in the case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Is he allowed to do that though? Is he not bound to consider the case on the basis of evidence presented? It would be a bit off if he made a decision citing facts which never appeared in the case! Not sure myself maybe some others can clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.S. Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 The power and influence a team called rangers has in this country is even greater than even i imagined. We've seen it with match officials, the media and the football authorities. Even all the other clubs seem to humbly accept their position being meekly subservient to a team called rangers. Now their influence through fear, secret handshakes or whatever affects straight forward cases in the courts. Scottish football as a fair sport is just not possible and never will be until there is no team called rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 The power and influence a team called rangers has in this country is even greater than even i imagined. We've seen it with match officials, the media and the football authorities. Even all the other clubs seem to humbly accept their position being meekly subservient to a team called rangers. Now their influence through fear, secret handshakes or whatever affects straight forward cases in the courts. Scottish football as a fair sport is just not possible and never will be until there is no team called rangers. Not really, it's the thuggish element in their fanbase. Coral doesn't want its employees threatened or its windows tanned. It also doesn't want to lose half of its Glasgow income. That's why the lawyers danced a strange gavotte arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin rather than the facts. The real power broker within the game is Peter Lawwell at Celtic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Is he allowed to do that though? Is he not bound to consider the case on the basis of evidence presented? It would be a bit off if he made a decision citing facts which never appeared in the case! True, although there will have been mounds of written evidence submitted. This hearing supplemented that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.S. Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Not really, it's the thuggish element in their fanbase. Coral doesn't want its employees threatened or its windows tanned. It also doesn't want to lose half of its Glasgow income. That's why the lawyers danced a strange gavotte arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin rather than the facts. The real power broker within the game is Peter Lawwell at Celtic. "Thuggish element in their support" is that not the fear I'm referring to? celtic have no where near the influence rangers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo dans les Pyrenees Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 1m1 minute ago Sandison "Are we to surrender the decision on who won or lost a sporting event to the power of the popular press?" Building up to a final crescendo of "No surrender"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 In the news, I see that Warburton has been explaining why he is going for loan signings. Apparently, it's to avoid having to pay inflated transfer fees. What proportion of Sevconians do you think believe this rubbish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.S. Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Not really, it's the thuggish element in their fanbase. Coral doesn't want its employees threatened or its windows tanned. It also doesn't want to lose half of its Glasgow income. That's why the lawyers danced a strange gavotte arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin rather than the facts. The real power broker within the game is Peter Lawwell at Celtic. "Thuggish element in their support" is that not the fear I'm referring to? celtic have no where near the influence rangers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) Are Coral genuinely scared of losing Rangers customers if they point out liquidation? They'd probably lose more than what is at stake through lost bets and the cost to repair broken windows, damaged shops and to compensate abused staff, if they said Rangers died. Edited January 19, 2017 by Paolo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I thought the most telling statement from Rod McKenzie this morning was his response to a question from Mr Sandison. Counsel asks "Was the football team called Rangers FC ever relegated from the SPL?" McKenzie responds "that would require me to make a judgement on what is "relegation" and I'd rather not do so" Now that response came from the same person who admitted that he had drafted most of the rules of the SPL and had advised the SPL on many matters, yet as the person probably most qualified to make such a judgement, he is unwilling to do so. You would have to ask why. Death threats?Not out of the question when you know who we are dealing with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Death threats? Not out of the question when you know who we are dealing with. Not death threats, but Jim Spence has highlighted how his wife and kids have been abused in the street because he did not toil the BBC Scotland line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Sandison "Rangers were not moved to a lower league, a set of circumstances arose that made them ineligible to play in the Premier League" My question in return would be, what were those circumstances? Talk about " beating around the bush" "treading on egg shells" "avoiding the obvious". Just say Rangers went bust and the new entity had to reapply for a licence that allowed the new club to compete starting at the bottom. It's really that simple. Ever wondered how lawyers are rich and Joe Bloggs is poor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Not death threats, but Jim Spence has highlighted how his wife and kids have been abused in the street because he did not toil the BBC Scotland line. I may be wrong but I'm sure he tweeted re death threats and I've been on ZZ often enough to know their forte is threatening folk,again I know their bark is bigger than their bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts